Friday, September 30, 2011

1. If the amended Dog Owners' Liability Act (2005) came up today for a free rather than a whipped vote as happened in 2005, would you vote in favour of banning breeds as an effective way to protect people from dog bites? Please explain.

ANSWER: No.

2. Please tell our readers why you think the 'pit bull' ban enacted by the McGuinty government has or has not been successful in protecting the public from dog bites.

ANSWER: It has not been successful—breed specific legislation simply does not work. See explanation below.

3. Would you be willing, if elected, to work to rescind the breed-specific regulations in Ontario's amended Dog Owners' Liability Act (2005) andreplace them with an existing, easily implemented Canadian system that has been effective in the control of negligent pet owners, that issupported by all responsible pet owners and that once established is fully funded by dog and cat ownersrather than through general revenue taxation? Please briefly explain your response.

ANSWER: Yes we would rescind the breed-specific legislation. New Democrats support responsible dog ownership. Breed-specific legislation does nothing for public safety but it unfairly targets many innocent dogs and their responsible owners.

4. Is there anything you'd like to add?

Ontario’s New Democrats voted against the Dog Owner’s Liability Act in 2005 and NDP MPP Cheri DiNovo has introduced legislation, multiple times, that would have repealed the flawed and ineffective breed-specific regulations. We continue to stand behind our record on this issue.

Trevor Westerhoff NDP candidate Ancaster-Dundas

Sharon Clarke NDP candidate Algoma Manitoulin

Thank you for your response Trevor and Sharon. Good luck on October 6th!

I apologize for my tardy reply. We have a very small campaign team in my riding, so I answer all of my own surveys, while carrying out the other duties of a candidate and also continuing to work full time.

This issue is one I have spoken about for many years whenever the issue came up with friends and acquaintances. Some of the nicest dogs I've met were pit bulls, doberman pinschers, rotweillers, or german shepherds.

Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty says the smokes-for-votes comment made by one of his campaign officials was "completely unacceptable."
”Completely unacceptable comment on the part of my worker. It was a bad joke in poor taste. She apologized for it,” McGuinty said in Brampton, where he was touring a Chrysler plant.
Nikki Holland, operational vice-president for Ontario’s Liberals, was taped making comments about bribing the homeless with smokes during a campaign training session on July 16.

Joke? I doubt it.. she got caught. Holland also tried to say the other parties use this tactic as well. Those are some strong allegations when bribing for votes is illegal!On October 6th vote for the candidate most likely to toss the Lieberal to the curb!

"I have done crazy things," Holland says. "Like ... and if anyone repeats this I'll deny it (until) the cows come home ... I have gone to a shelter in the riding of St. Paul's with a carton of smokes and said, 'I'll give you them after you vote.' I have done that ... but they were already smokers."

Holland was apparently on Bryant's "speed dial" after he ran over Darcy Sheppard August 29, 2009. The Star printed a story about the identity of the woman who brought a suit and shirt and tie down to Metro Toronto Police so Bryant could spruce up before his media conference.

The act of handing out smokes in exchange for votes is otherwise known as electoral fraud.

Four days before Christmas 2006, McGuinty gave Ontario MPP's a 25% pay raise. The base salary for an MPP went up by $22,000, giving each elected representative $110,000 annually. Cabinet ministers got an extra $31,000 to earn $157,633 a year and the premier got a $39,000 raise, making McGuinty's annual pay cheques $198,620.

In a time that we were going into a recession, which Ontarian's have still not recovered. People were out of work, took pay cuts but yet the cost of living has gone up considerably.

A company that planned to build a series of huge wind farms in Lake Ontario is suing the provincial government for $2.25-billion, claiming it unfairly cancelled all offshore wind projects earlier this year.

Trillium Power Wind Corp. spent millions of dollars over many years planning its projects, and had dutifully followed the government’s application processes, the suit claims, but the rug was pulled from under its feet when the province said it would not consider any offshore development until more scientific studies were done.

The Liberals' promise of $10,000 tax credit for employers offering training and a first job to new Canadian professionals who have been in the country for under five years has been a bone of contention from the start of the election.

Initially, the Liberals were forced to admit it would only apply to very few people given that it is almost impossible to become a Canadian citizen in much less than five years.

McGuinty brushed off the suggestion that his government would in fact be discriminating against permanent residents with the proposed program however all aspects of this promise are discriminatory and will be sure to open up yet another court case against the McGuinty Liberals on human rights grounds.

The court system is certainly benefiting from McGuinty's stint as the worst premier in Ontario's history. The cases keep mounting up.

1. If the amended Dog Owners' Liability Act (2005) came up today for a free rather than a whipped vote as happened in 2005, would you vote in favour of banning breeds as an effective way to protect people from dog bites? Please explain.

ANSWER: No.

2. Please tell our readers why you think the 'pit bull' ban enacted by the McGuinty government has or has not been successful in protecting the public from dog bites.

ANSWER: It has not been successful—breed specific legislation simply does not work. See explanation below.

3. Would you be willing, if elected, to work to rescind the breed-specific regulations in Ontario's amended Dog Owners' Liability Act (2005) andreplace them with an existing, easily implemented Canadian system that has been effective in the control of negligent pet owners, that issupported by all responsible pet owners and that once established is fully funded by dog and cat ownersrather than through general revenue taxation? Please briefly explain your response.

ANSWER: Yes we would rescind the breed-specific legislation. New Democrats support responsible dog ownership. Breed-specific legislation does nothing for public safety but it unfairly targets many innocent dogs and their responsible owners.

4. Is there anything you'd like to add?

Ontario’s New Democrats voted against the Dog Owner’s Liability Act in 2005 and NDP MPP Cheri DiNovo has introduced legislation, multiple times, that would have repealed the flawed and ineffective breed-specific regulations. We continue to stand behind our record on this issue.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Thank you very much for your letter and survey on behalf of the Dog Legislation Council of Canada. I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond. To answer your questions, I enlisted the help of our number one policy expert: our family dog, Mikki. Unfortunately, a squirrel got her attention and I am forced to answer on my own.

I am a firm believer in the rewards of pet ownership. Having Mikki in our lives ensures that Terri and I get out for regular walks and exercise. Her companionship helps us relax at the end of a stressful day. Simply put — our family adores her and we don’t know what we’d do without her.

As a pet owner, I also know that dog ownership is, first and foremost, a responsibility.

A few years ago, Ontario Liberals made the decision to restrict pit bulls. After a series of horrific accidents around the province, we decided that the interests of public safety would be best-served by restricting that particular breed.

At the same time, we also toughened the penalties for the owners of any dog that poses a danger to the public.

• Fines for offences under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act were increased to a maximum of $10,000 and allow for jail sentences of up to six months for people who allow any kind of dog to bite, attack or pose a menace to the safety of a person or domestic animal.

• Fines were increased up to a maximum of $60,000 for corporations owning such dogs.

• Also, judges can now order restitution to be paid in relation to an offence under the act.

Because of the new legislation, today there are fewer opportunities for serious pit bull attacks — ensuring that the people who are most vulnerable to these attacks are out of harm's way.

I believe we need to maintain our efforts, because the remaining restricted pit bulls continue to pose safety issues. For instance:

• April 13, 2011 — Ottawa — An un-muzzled pit bull tore out the throat of a threeyear-old Shih Tzu that was being walked by his teenaged owner.

• April 27, 2011 — Orillia — a pit bull attacked and killed a small dog outside an Orillia apartment building. The pit bull was wearing a muzzle that came off during the attack.

Our position is that repealing this legislation would be a step backwards. We understand these changes may have presented challenges for some dog owners, but we are confident that all Ontarians want what is in the best interests of public safety.

I want to thank you for taking the opportunity to write to me and appreciate the opportunity to answer your questions. Please accept my best wishes.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Dalton McGuinty's tuition fee hikes push fees to record highs for the third year in a rowTORONTO, Sept. 16, 2011 /CNW/ - Statistics Canada released its annual tuition fee report today which shows that under Dalton McGuinty's watch, tuition fees are the highest in Canada for the third year in a row. Undergraduate students pay an average of $6,640 and graduate students pay an average of $7,578. According to the report, graduate student fees increased by 5.5 per cent, exceeding the provincial government's regulations."It is unacceptable that the current government has forced Ontario students to pay the highest fees in Canada. As other provinces freeze and reduce tuition fees, the gap between Ontario and the second most expensive province widens," said Sandy Hudson, Chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario. "Students and their families are preparing to vote in the provincial election and they want to know which of the parties they can trust to reduce the cost of education."Read more

Monday, September 26, 2011

So far today we have received numerous responses from Liberal MPP's and candidates. All responses have been the same form letter. I am happy to report that we have needled enough to warrant a form response as opposed to each individual thoughtfully answering the questions from their own point of view.

I usually wish each candidate good luck on October 6th however I am not going to extend regards to a form response. I would respect a personal opinion or a genuine response on behalf of ones riding but towing the party line sickens me and shows the disregard the McGuinty Liberals have for the tax paying citizens that put them in office!

Dog ownership and companionship is an incredibly rewarding, and enriching responsibility. Dogs help us connect with nature, increase our levels of physical activity, and reduce our stress. I also know that dog ownership is, first and foremost, a responsibility.

A few years ago, Ontario Liberals made the decision to restrict pit bulls. After a series of horrific accidents around the province, we decided that the interests of public safety would be best-served by restricting that particular breed.

At the same time, we also toughened the penalties for the owners of any dog that poses a danger to the public.

·Fines for offences under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act were increased to a maximum of $10,000 and allow for jail sentences of up to six months for people who allow any kind of dog to bite, attack or pose a menace to the safety of a person or domestic animal.

·Fines were increased up to a maximum of $60,000 for corporations owning such dogs.

·Also, judges can now order restitution to be paid in relation to an offence under the Act.

Because of the new legislation, today there are fewer opportunities for serious pit bull attacks — ensuring that the people who are most vulnerable to these attacks are out of harm's way.

I believe we need to maintain our efforts, because the remaining restricted pit bulls continue to pose safety issues. For instance:

·April 13, 2011 – Ottawa – An un-muzzled pit bull tore out the throat of a 3-year old Shih Tzu that was being walked by his teenaged owner.

·April 27, 2011 – Orillia – a pit bull attacked and killed a small dog outside an Orillia apartment building. The pit bull was wearing a muzzle that came off during the attack.

Our position is that repealing this legislation would be a step backwards. We understand these changes may have presented challenges for some dog owners, but we are confident that all Ontarians want what is in the best interests of public safety.

I want to thank you for taking the opportunity to write to me and appreciate the opportunity to answer your questions.

On behalf of Ontario dog owners I wish to thank the Ontario NDP party for your ongoing support and common sense approach, to the breed discriminatory amendments that were made by the McGuinty Liberal's to the Dog Owners Liability Act.

Special thanks to Cheri DiNovo for making Hershey's Bill heard at Queen's Park.

1. If the amended Dog Owners' Liability Act (2005) came up today for a free rather than a whipped vote as happened in 2005, would you vote in favour of banning breeds as an effective way to protect people from dog bites? Please explain.

No, I would not vote in favour of banning breeds. I do not feel this is responsible legislation and I was pleased that the NDP actively opposed this legislation when it was originally proposed.

2. Please tell our readers why you think the 'pit bull' ban enacted by the McGuinty government has or has not been successful in protecting the public from dog bites.

Dogs of all breeds can bite if they are mistreated, threatened or under hostile circumstances. This legislation was simply a public relations exercise developed under the pressure of media sensationalism. The better way to protect the public is by dealing with cruel and negligent dog owners, not by targeting specific breeds.

3. Would you be willing, if elected, to work torescind the breed-specific regulations in Ontario's amended Dog Owners' Liability Act (2005) and replace them with an existing, easily implemented Canadian system that has been effective in the control of negligent pet owners, that is supported by all responsible pet owners and that once established is fully funded by dog and cat owners rather than through general revenue taxation? Please briefly explain your response.

Yes. While I would not consider this an urgent priority, it is certainly something that I would be willing to support, provided it is self-funding and not onerously unfair to pet owners.

4. Is there anything you'd like to add?

I love animals and want to strengthen laws and especially their enforcement to protect domestic animals and pets from cruelty, abuse and neglect. My pet is an important part of our family and I am confident she is an NDP supporter. However, since animals can't vote, it's important for humans to show courage, compassion and leadership to stand up for animals.

I trust this fully answers your questions, but if you require any further information, please do not hesitate to get in touch again.

1. If the amended Dog Owners' Liability Act (2005) came up today for a free rather than a whipped vote as happened in 2005, would you vote in favour of banning breeds as an effective way to protect people from dog bites? Please explain.

Before voting I would want to see any research or study reviewing the effectiveness of this act over the last 6 years, as well as the general trends. From what I have learned so far, some pet owners need training, and education in their choice of pet. I have seen vast improvements in behavior with proper training and care.

2. Please tell our readers why you think the 'pit bull' ban enacted by the McGuinty government has or has not been successful in protecting the public from dog bites.

I think that politicians shouldn’t be legislating without doing thorough research and consultation. There were other requirements in that legislation, so separating out the effects of the breed ban versus the other things will represent a challenge.

3. Would you be willing, if elected, to work torescind the breed-specific regulations in Ontario's amended Dog Owners' Liability Act Act (2005) and replace them with an existing, easily implemented Canadian system that has been effective in the control of negligent pet owners, that is supported by all responsible pet owners and that once established is fully funded by dog and cat owners rather than through general revenue taxation? Please briefly explain your response.

I am open to learning how quality of life can be improved and public safety can be protected at the same time. If there is a better way to achieve this for our country, I look forward learning about it.

4. Is there anything you'd like to add?

My family inherited a dog named Max from my late father-in law. He was the type of dog that was good with kids and knew that I would rescue him from the affections of my toddler. My neighbors recognized me as the guy with the baby and very old dog. Max passed away from us this past summer. I'm sorry but I don't have a nice picture for you publication.

Sunday, September 25, 2011

David Zimmer (Liberal MPP Willowdale) was one of the major participants in pushing the breed ban here in Ontario. He said at a town hall meeting recently that the breed ban here in Ontario was "old news".

Well a few of my friends had a quite different message for him at his open house for the campaign this weekend.

Weird, he didn't have much to say... it is rare to see him speechless.

In 8 years we have witnessed the erosion of civil rights, the decline of the economic engine of Canada to "have not" status, the most enormous debt load in history, and lobbyists and the Liberal "connected" move forward with agendas without rational or fact.

There have been an unprecedented number of constitutional cases against the McGuinty government. Knowing this from launching our own case against the McGuinty Liberals we quickly found we were certainly not alone! However that brought not comfort but concern to our plight against this incompetent McGuinty government.

This campaign has been strange to say the least, however I hope people show up in record numbers to vote even if it is to spoil the ballot if they do not like the choices. Exercise your right to vote because we owe it to ourselves and those who have gone before us allowing us the right to have our say.

Remember,

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Canada's national organization for responsible dog owners, The Dog Legislation Council of Canada has launched its "Ontario Votes" project to inform hundreds of thousands of dog owners across the province about the issues that matter to them. Even though an estimated 44% of Ontario households own at least one dog, these issues do not appear in party platforms, are not discussed in the mainstream media and are not featured in candidate debates. We get daily inquiries about where politicians stand on what is important to dog owners.

We realize that, as a candidate, you are extremely busy so we have kept our questions short and to the point. Your answers will be featured on our blog, Wag the Dog! on a riding-by-riding basis. Should you decline to respond, that will be indicated as well. We will not edit your answers unless there are typographical errors which need to be corrected.

Here are the survey questions:

1. If the amended Dog Owners' Liability Act (2005) came up today for a free rather than a whipped vote as happened in 2005, would you vote in favour of banning breeds as an effective way to protect people from dog bites? Please explain.

Unfortunately, certain breeds seem to have been the "dog of choice" for owners who wanted an "aggressive" animal. It is my view that the owner/dog relationship is a far bigger factor than the breed in terms of behaviour. If this issue were to come up today in a free vote scenario I would do what I think all MPPs should do on issues like this, consult my constituents. I would canvass and phone through, and solicit online feedback to see what my constituents wanted me to do.

2. Please tell our readers why you think the 'pit bull' ban enacted by the McGuinty government has or has not been successful in protecting the public from dog bites.

There are still "dog attack" stories in the news, so obviously the ban has had a relatively minimal impact on public safety.

3. Would you be willing, if elected, to work torescind the breed-specific regulations in Ontario's amended Dog Owners' Liability Act (2005) and replace them with an existing, easily implemented Canadian system that has been effective in the control of negligent pet owners, that is supported by all responsible pet owners and that once established is fully funded by dog and cat owners rather than through general revenue taxation? Please briefly explain your response.

I believe honesty is the best policy, so I want to be honest, this is not an issue that I consider to be a "top priority" for my constituents. I am certain there are people in my riding who want this ban rescinded, but my priorities are to help make life more affordable, starting to address the healthcare crisis, and getting people in my community back to work. When I have seniors cutting their pills in have to stretch their prescriptions out longer, over 4000 people on a wait list for affordable housing, 20,000 people without a family doctor, and 15,000 jobs having disappeared in the past 5 years, my priority must be addressing these big problems.

4. Is there anything you'd like to add?

I'm a dog owner myself, and Sofie is a loved member of our family. Both my husband Bill, who is a City Councillor, and I have been supporters of initiatives like "off-leash" dog parks, to allow people and their dogs to enjoy exercise together and socialize with others in our community. I understand the attachment and love people have toward their cats and dogs because it is an attachment I share with Sofie.

More important to me than the breed ban issue, in terms of animal rights, is the large numbers of animals abandoned to shelters (something which is certainly in part a by-product of the poor economic realities people are struggling with), and euthanized every year in Ontario. Our animal companions deserve better than to be treated like disposable property instead of as fellow living creatures.

McGuinty chose not to attend the debate being held in Northern Ontario. Today Tim Hudak and Andrea Horwath packed a Thunder Bay conference center. The leaders were asked questions by representatives of local business groups, and each were given three minutes for opening statements. The questions were largely centred around the cost of electricity and jobs.

McGuinty obviously didn't find this debate to be important enough to attend which shows his lack of priority for Northern Ontario issues. This is odd since several of the current Liberal Northern ridings are undecided..

It doesn't take a Harvard graduate to figure out the volume of votes are in Toronto and the GTA however I would love to see McGuinty get his butt kicked on October 6th! His disregard is appalling for anyone who isn't in a Union or Ontarian's who have drank the Lieberal Kool-Aid.

I ran across an interesting article on the dangerous tactics of McGuinty, with respect to Ontario's energy plan.

Ontario needs to return to rational decision-making when it comes to ensuring that current strategies meet future power generation needs. Current policies, such as the promotion of wind power, reflect public concerns about global warming at the expense of securing a stable and economic energy future. If such publicly popular but economically unsound policies continue, the province’s prosperity will be seriously jeopardized.

Now this goes directly against what Dr. David Suzuki is saying. In fact Dr. David Suzuki has been publicly endorsing McGuinty's energy plan, which the Lieberal'shave been making sure YOU know. I guess they don't have too many endorsements so the one they have they are latching on to like a 'dog with a bone'.

In an exclusive interview with The Star, Suzuki warned it is “absolute insanity” for Tim Hudak to want to scrap wind and solar power initiatives that the Tories claim are too expensive.

“I don’t get it, because it’s a job creator — I would have thought that the Conservatives would be banging away at the need to create jobs,” the host of CBC’s The Nature of Things said during a stroll withMcGuinty in Stanley Park on Wednesday.

In the tone of typical bias you would expect The Star to use when talking about Liberal polices, the paper goes out of its way to only tell the side Suzuki, McGuintyand The Star want you to hear – solar energy is good. Always. No matter the cost.

Now maybe if you are Dalton McGuinty or David Suzuki you can afford to pay 8 to 13 times the going rate just to feel good about yourself. I mean after all McGuintyhas a good job that pays well and has his house paid for by the public purse. Suzuki has become wealthy enough over the years.

Maybe for them, paying a lot more for energy is no big deal. For the rest of us it’s a big deal!

McGuinty claims that the green plan has vaulted Ontario to the forefront of action against climate change.

At the time of the Suzuki/McGuinty stroll in Stanley Park, McGuinty was attending a first minister's meeting in Vancouver of which he was "thrown out"... Guess he's not so popular with the other premier's either..

In case you missed it, despite having the second-highest average wages in Canada, Ontario is now officially a have-not province. This year – its third on the dole – it will get $2.2 billion, more than any other province except Quebec, which pockets more than half of the $14.7 billion handed out in equalization payments from the Federal Government. The program designed to allow each province to offer roughly the same services, regardless of relative wealth.

Three years ago, before Ontario moved into the receiving end of equalization,McGuinty argued that the equalization program should be scrapped.

He still doesn’t like the term, but he has come to like the way equalization works, threatening to “flex our elbows and assert ourselves” if anyone tries to mess with Ontario’s entitlement.

Going into the first ministers’ meeting this week, McGuinty took the same narrow view of the energy policy, arguing that Ontario taxpayers have been subsidizing the oil industry for years so it’s only fair that the rest of Canada, through the taxes we send to Ottawa, should now be subsidizing the green energy business in Ontario.

That claim is so astounding it deserves to be broken down.

First, it’s true that the oil and gas industry is subsidized through various tax and royalty incentives. McGuinty’s complaint is based on the notion that if the petroleum industry paid higher taxes, Ontario residents could pay less. The point of the subsidies, however, is to encourage investments that wouldn’t otherwise be made. In spite of the subsidies, the oil and gas business generates billions of dollars in revenues that reduce the amount of taxes that all Canadians, including those who live in Ontario, have to pay.

McGuinty should be familiar with that principle, since his province has paid billions in subsidies to the auto industry over the past few decades to maintain that business with the jobs and the tax revenue it generates for Queen’s Park.

Ontario’s green plan is set up on the same principle. The government is offering lavish subsidies in the form of a premium price for the electricity they generate from renewable sources to companies that are willing to invest in the province.

The Liberals say the strategy is working, creating thousands of jobs and allowing Ontario to move toward shutting down the coal plants that still produce a significant portion of electricity consumed in the province. The opposition says it’s an expensive failure that is burdening consumers now without ensuring sufficient generating capacity for the future.

The largest source of electricity is still nuclear energy, an industry that a study from nine years ago estimated had already been given the equivalent of $17 billion in subsidies from the federal government.

On a per-capita basis, Ontario is already getting more in total transfers from Ottawa than the provinces with an oil and gas industry, 12 per cent more than British Columbia and Saskatchewan, and 45 per cent more than Alberta.

So is it possible that the "Green Energy Plan" in Ontario is a proverbial money pit that is not producing its worth? That the sustainability is just not there butMcGuinty is giving it mouth to mouth in hopes it will somehow magically revive. All facts point to failures based on too expensive to maintain in relation to energy production. So called "green jobs" are drying up. This past week the plant inNewmarket producing solar panels ceased production yet McGuinty threatened the workers that if they voted for Hudak the plant would close.

Is it possible that McGuinty is lying to David Suzuki? Now there is a possibilityconsidering his track record..

Is it possible that David Suzuki has received some coin from the Liberal government for the David Suzuki foundation? hmmm there are a lot of organizations on the dole could the Suzuki Foundation be one of them?

All questions that deserve an honest answer however you may have to use your best judgement to decide.

On October 6th vote for the candidate most likely to beat the Liberal. McGuinty is incompetent but don't take my word for it!

September 8, 2011 Toronto, Ontario: Since Dalton McGuinty plopped Linda Jeffrey into the chair of Minister of Natural Resources in 2010, there have been two hundred and fifty five (255) permits issued to contravene the ‘Endangered Species Act 2007’. An unprecedented number compared to her predecessor who issued twelve (12) in two years.

On April 8, 2010, the McGuinty govt. issued two carte blanche exemptions – 1) to eighty-three (83) municipalities in south and central Ontario for infrastructure work, and 2) one hundred and three (103) aggregate companies. (EBR # 010-9526 and EBR # 010-9527)

Typical individual exemptions include Metrus Development who in March 2010 received a permit to destroy the habitat of the Redside Dace , an endangered fish, to build a school and park as part of a subdivision inBrampton. (EBR # 010-9085)

“I wonder how those children would feel if they knew their park destroyed the habitat of a species struggling to survive on this planet,” muses AnnaMaria Valastro of Peaceful Parks Coalition.

In April, 2011, the McGuinty government issued a permit to the City of Guelph to destroy a nesting site (an old chimney) of the threatened Chimney Swift for the purpose of establishing a temporary parking lot and a new library. (EBR # 010-3168)

“I guess Minister Jeffrey couldn’t figure out how to incorporate an old chimney stack currently being used by Chimney Swifts into the overall design of the temporary parking lot,” speculates Ms Valastro.

The number of species affected from all the exemptions is vast, including species on the brink of extinction such as Jefferson Salamander (endangered), American Ginseng (endangered), Butler’s Gartersnake (endangered), Mudpuppy Mussel (endangered), Redside Dace (endangered), Round Pigtoe (endangered), Eastern Flowering Dogwood (endangered), and so many more.

“This government is reckless with Section 17 (2)(c), a loophole which allows the minister to issue exemption permits,” concludes Valastro.

“What’s worse, is that on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry, these exemption notices are listed as an ‘overall benefit’ permit to a species. So unless a person actually opens and reads the notice, one could conclude that McGuinty is protecting hundreds of species at risk,” says Valastro.

This couldn’t be further from the truth.

The McGuinty government is also considering a proposal to exempt the forestry industry, the hydro electric industry and the mining industry from the ‘Endangered Species Act 2007’ as it relates to the protection of Woodland Caribou – a species reliant on ancient forests to survive and whose population is rapidly declining in Ontario.

Saturday, September 17, 2011

McGuinty's Green Energy Plan is a failure due to the fact that the McGuinty Liberals are incompetent and do not think things through. Running on theory is not good enough. At some point in time one must figure out that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is and if the government must throw copious amounts of money at companies and ideas for sustainability, there might be a problem!

David Frum: McGuinty doubles down on the green-jobs money pit

On Friday, the Ontario premier delivered a stinging partisan speech at the Flextronics solar panel factory in Newmarket, Ont. There he warned that if his government is defeated, the factory will close.

But if that claim is true, think what it means for the 13.2-million Ontarians who do not work for Flextronics. If true, McGuinty’s claim reveals that the only reason those Flextronics jobs exists is that his government has given the factory a deal that would be acceptable to no other buyer on planet earth. This is supposed to be an argument in favor of McGuinty’s re-election?

Friday, September 16, 2011

McGuinty initially made an election promise to extend government-funded treatment as an election promise in 2003 but reneged on that promise once elected.

There was a lawsuit, brought forward by 29 families with autistic children, which challenged the McGuinty Liberals in court on grounds of discrimination based on age and disability.

It costs parents on average $60,000 to treat a child, which for a lot of parents is not possible. The case was initially won by the parents ordering the government to pay for treatment of children with autism over 6 yrs old but the McGuinty Liberals appealed the ruling and won the appeal which struck down the original ruling.

After the initial ruling, McGuinty said "he was concerned by a court ruling that requires a government to spend money it might not have". But it is ok to dole out taxpayers money to unions essentially paying them to advertise and back he and the provincial Liberals in their campaign! Or flush billions of dollars down the toilet on E Health, OLG and CAS while not keeping an eye on agencies burning through money like kindling.

In true discriminatory fashion McGuinty justified the government's decision to appeal the April 2005 ruling, saying " children with autism represent only a minority of youngsters with special needs".

Divisive and discriminatory is the McGuinty way.

Speaking from experience, we dog owners know first hand the McGuinty Liberals will spend any amount of taxpayers money to fight those of us discriminated against, in court. We too took the McGuinty Liberals to court on constitutional grounds. We too won the first round in court and had major portions of the breed ban struck but the McGuinty Liberals appealed and the ban was reinstated to its original form.

We appealed to Supreme Court of Canada, but the SSC refused to hear out case. They only agree to hear approximately 10% of all cases filed, however that whole adventure cost we dog owners 3/4 of a million dollars of hard earned fund-raising.

The McGuinty Liberals, on the other hand used our taxpayers dollars to fight us in court just as they did with the autistic children's parents! There have been numerous constitutional challenges against the McGuinty Liberals. Too many to count. There is also currently a constitutional challenge in court over the Special Purpose Charge I explained in a previous blog post.

How happy does that make you to know how your tax payer dollars are being spent?

On October 6th vote for the candidate most likely to beat the Liberal!

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Where under the McGuinty Government's watch, Ontario Families had their homes either significantly undervalued or significantly overvalued by the MPAC, resulting in either a huge loss of their home's value, or them being significantly overcharged for property taxes. When provided with the auditor's report, the MPAC rejected investigating into the issue.

In addition to their failures in providing the basic service for which they are employed, they also were caught in yet another E Health-type expense scandal.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

The Ontario Health Premium, the highest tax increase ever, implemented months after McGuinty was elected in 2003. He signed a contract with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to not increase taxes yet in true Dalton McGuinty form went ahead anyway.

He justified his health care tax by blaming an unknown deficit from the previous Government, yet under McGuinty's watch the deficit has more than doubled since 2003.
The sliding scale is disproportionate based on income and contrary to Liberal spew health care spending is up and care is not.

Here is the kicker.. most people don't mind paying a bit more or their fair share if the dollars are being spent wisely. Wisely is not in the Liberal vocabulary. Giving ridiculous amounts of money to unions such as the auto union and teacher's union, setting up bureaucratic agencies and placing Liberal's in high paying jobs and letting agencies such as E Health run rampant with spending and not producing are more McGuinty's style.

This is where your hard earned money that you pay in your Ontario Health Premium are going.

On October 6th, vote for the candidate most likely to beat the Liberal.